Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of non-marine molluscs of Dominica/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 19:38, 22 February 2011 [1].

List of non-marine molluscs of Dominica[edit]

List of non-marine molluscs of Dominica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Snek01 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is stable and complete since April 2010. It has well defined structure. It has reasonable additional detailed information when needed to be practical. It has diverse supporting images. Snek01 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As one of the members of Project Gastropods, I am trying to help get this list accepted as FL. However I am clearly much more prepared to compromise than User:Snek01. He did not agree with some of the changes I made in the list over the last couple of days, and has reverted them, even though they were suggested by reviewers. I will continue to try to help this nomination be successful, but if changes of mine are reverted by the nominator I assume there is really nothing I can do about that. Invertzoo (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - Of the WP:FL? it clearly fails 2 done, also is confusing as to why the Summary table of number of species is in the lead. done The table is also quite frankly looks unprofessional and messy which fails 4 of the Criteria. done I'm sure other editors will give a more in-depth analysis but this list is not ready. Afro (Talk) 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, the lead could be longer done, table is odd: I suggest you to move the pic column to the second column and add a references and notes column, not together. done The Summary table of number of species section should have a header. done The table's first column hasn't any column header, the second column' header is "Dominica", which is useless, because the list is about molluscs in Dominica. done The section "Freshwater gastropods" deserves a table. done -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am currently attempting to make some improvements, as suggested. Invertzoo (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I expanded the intro. I agree that it would look better to put the freshwater species into a table, as per the land species. Even though we don't have images for most of them, we could at any rate add an image for Pomacea glauca. Invertzoo (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I am not used to working with tables, otherwise I would do it myself. Invertzoo (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made the change-over to a table OK and added one image. Invertzoo (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe User:Snek01 put both notes and references in one column because several of the notes need a reference after each fact that is stated there. Invertzoo (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed both tables so that the images come after the species names and before the notes. Invertzoo (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Since this article has excellent content and is marred only by some formatting problems and other things that are easy to fix, I would support this nomination as long as all the objections that are raised are rapidly fixed or suitably explained. Invertzoo (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do let me know what else needs changing. Invertzoo (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from SmartSE (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better if each name had a reference after it and the "references and notes" was changed to just notes. ...Done, but then reverted...
  • It would be good if all the images were centered in the boxes.
I am happy to do this and I just now tried using the "center" command on the first image, but it doesn't appear to work. Anyone know the correct way to do this? Invertzoo (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Removed thumb and images center automatically. Invertzoo (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the summary table be changed so that it doesn't take up the whole width of the page? done
Thank to everybody for comment. Most comments are very subjective suggesting what should be the first, what then and so on. Every comment is valuable, but t does not mean, that it will be immediately (unreasonably) implemented. --Snek01 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had virtually completely finished changing the tables as suggested by User:Smartse, (quite a lot of work) but my changes were then reverted by User:Snek01, who disagrees with the ideas. What can I say? Invertzoo (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please separate references with notes. Add captions and provide a good table. Otherwise I will oppose.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The style of everything in the actually nominated list is compatible with other featured lists (for example Celine Dion albums discography, Bodley's Librarian). If anybody wants some minor changes, he/she have to say not only that he/she wants something, but also why it is demanded by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria or by any other guideline. Provide as detailed comment as possible. There will be made no changes based on wishes, beseech, feelings or any other unreasonable objections. On the other hand, suggestions based on guidelines will be carefully considered and when reasonable, they may be implemented, as it was done according to some (not all) suggestions above. --Snek01 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the table, in the "notes" column, there are sometimes refs and sometimes a text. The column is about 40% and for that 40% and a small ref it looks very funny, it's like someone send packages with a width and height of 1 meter and put there in some a baseball and in some a baseball bat inside; the same here. Why not just separating from each other? The reader wants to view the text, not a reference to link every time to another page. It is intelligible that all pictures need captions and alt text; why do they have a |thumb parameter if most of the pics haven't got captions? Why do you listed this lists? They have a good "notes" column with text, but not like here, some with text and some with ref.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Rearranged with different way. See bellow. --Snek01 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done. 1×. --Snek01 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are National Parks capitalised? done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertzoo (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Species column in the table also has who discovered it (I guess) in parentheses. This should be reflected in the column title. does not need to be done, see below.
      • Explanation: Actually this is called the authority and the date, and it is officially part of the name of a species (in zoology but not in botany). Some of these authorities and dates have parentheses and some don't; this is an official code that tells people whether the species was first described in that genus, or in another genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertzoo (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]
        • The fact you've had to explain that to me means that it would do no harm whatsoever to explain this to our readers with a suitable footnote. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is really clear matter and does not need to be explained in every list containing some species, for example Featured List of mammals of Canada. --Snek01 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see no harm at all in adding a footnote. Stop worrying about other lists, this is the one under review. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved by adding this sentence: "Systematic list include scientific names including authority and is sorted according to families:" It is as short as possible because list should be practical and easy to navigate per FL criteria. It is with wikilinks to an explanation you demand. done. --Snek01 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thumbnail images embedded in the table are very odd. You don't need to thumb them, just force their size to the same width using something like |150px|. Done at 200px, could go higher to 250px if necessary
Fixed size of images is against Wikipedia:Images: default viewing size are thumbnails. It is necessary for accessibility per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images. Possibilities are: 1) images as thumbnails in table. 2) images as thumbnails without table (with captions). 3) tables without images or list without images. --Snek01 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Images says that forcing image size shouldn't be done "as a rule". This means that it is allowable in some circumstances. The current "thumb within a cell" appearance is highly undesirable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is also right. Lets presume, that "thumb within a cell" appearance is highly undesirable for certain amount of readers. / There would be possibility to rearrange the list in a way similar to, for example List of birds of Kansas. That could be practical, because other lists of molluscs are much more longer and usually no list of molluscs is such short as this one. --Snek01 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either solution works fine for me, but the current solution is not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Rearranged. It works fine for me too. --Snek01 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Helicina rhodostoma Gray, 1824" missing parentheses around the discoverer.
      • This is deliberate and means that this species was originally named in this genus. Does not need to be done, see above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invertzoo (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]
        • Then a footnote needs to be added so it doesn't confuse non-expert readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough for now, let me know when these are done and I'll revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Will fix the metric/Imperial "convert"s tomorrow. Thanks for all your suggestions, Invertzoo (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment much better, one outstanding issue, one which is similar, and then I'll consider re-reviewing. Good work so far.

  • Don't think the summary table belongs in the lead. done but User:Snek01 will likely disagree with this. To me however, this change is fine. Invertzoo (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think the summary table does not belong in the lead. If you think so, provide an evidence. Compare for example with similar lists: List of non-marine molluscs of Turkey, List of non-marine molluscs of the Czech Republic, List of non-marine molluscs of Great Britain, List of non-marine molluscs of Brazil. If an an accessible overview can be done most easily and most accessible with an table; then the table is nor forbidden in the lead section. It is a standard in lists of molluscs. --Snek01 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, just because it's there in other articles, it doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note the summary table is still in the lead. This could be moved into a Summary section where you could actually use prose to explain those odd mathematical references. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "(42[3] + 1[2])" is still odd in the table. Please fix/explain this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is necessary to provide directly supporting evidence for number of species per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence and also per spirit of Wikipedia:No original research. No reference provide the exact number of land gastropods and freshwater gastropods. Burden of evidence lies with me as an editor. One reference says that there are 7 species and other reference says that there are another 4 species. No reference says that there are 11 species. You may be right that in practice not everything need actually be attributed. But in practice of gastropods, that are among the less known animals, these numbers are material likely to be challenged. Precise referencing is necessary here for practical purposes as well demanded by not only Wikipedia guidelines, but directly by Wikipedia policies. --Snek01 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"(42[3] + 1[2])" could easily be written "(42 + 1)[2][3]". Our readers can then reference the statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is already easily and precise as it is. It clearly says how many species are mentioned in certain reference. This can be considered as the most valuable and crucial information of this list. It is not possible to simplify it more. Proposed change can not improve referencing anyhow and it would worsen it. --Snek01 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal to move the references outside the parentheses, this would meet style guidelines. Alternatively you could provide a footnote which says that ref [3] references 42 while ref 2 references another one... Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to recommend to editors to avoid immediately applying suggestions suggested by reviewers without an evidence, that it "must" be as they do wish or because they only think, that something is "odd". --Snek01 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I would like to recommend to nominators that they take the time to appreciate the effort that reviewers go to in order to ensure that lists who go on to be featured really are part of Wikipedia's finest works. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I myself certainly appreciate all the work and time that the reviewers put into considering this list (and other articles) for FL or FA. Although I did not know in advance that this list was going to be submitted for possible FL, I have done my best to try to work with the reviewers to refine the list in ways that they have suggested. However the nominator himself seems to find it too much of a challenge to work in collaboration with anyone at all that is reviewing his work, so perhaps it is a waste of my time to try to assist with this process. Sorry this currently isn't working out any better than it is. Best wishes to all, Invertzoo (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest to the original nominator to not be as critical of suggestions on improving the Structure and Layout of the article, you can always request in a civil manner regarding the policy the suggestions apply to if you have issues with the suggestion. Afro (Talk) 05:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder how much Invertzoo contribute to this nomination; why he wasn't chosen as co-nominator, if I can ask you, Snek01?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may butt in, User:Snek01 did all of the work to put together this list and he did it entirely by himself. He also nominated it entirely by himself. (I may possibly have tweaked a few very small things before he nominated it, just routinely.) Because I am another active member of Project Gastropods, once I saw that this list had been nominated, I jumped in and tried to help out because it would be great for us in the Project to get our first Featured List. English is my first language, so it is easier for me to do things like expand the intro than it is for him to do it as English is his second language. I did not ask User:Snek01 if it was OK with him that I tried to help. Perhaps I should have asked first. Invertzoo (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --Snek01 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • The list looks pretty good, but it would be nice to have some estimates on the populations and the distribution area. Nergaal (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it would be great if that information were known to science, but research of that detailed nature has simply not been carried out. Field malacology is incredibly understaffed world-wide and underfunded too. It is extraordinary that even this much is known about the malacofauna of this rather small and very mountainous island. There are no available estimates on numbers of snails present in the different species, nor are there any distribution maps for the various species on the island; the available information (which is rather general in nature) is mentioned in the "Land gastropods overview" section. Invertzoo (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment still can't quite see why "(11[1][2] species of freshwater gastropods including 2 neritids that live in brackish water, 43 (42[3] + 1[2]) " would be deemed to be the best we can offer. I don't think we need all this ultra-specific referencing, if a reader has to get to the end of the sentence before seeing the ref, so what? I'd prefer to see "(11 species of freshwater gastropods including 2 neritids that live in brackish water, 43 species of land gastropods)[1][2][3]...". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. --Snek01 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) OK, simlified, but an inline citation kept close to the material it supports per Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Snek01 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've done this in the lead, I see no reason not to do it in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can be simplified in the sentence only because there is it referenced precisely immediately bellow. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources "adding the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient, so long as it is clear which source supports which part of the text." But adding all (or both) references in this case to the end is not sufficient here, because it is not clear which part of the text is referenced. Reference must be clearly placed is a matter of the text-source integrity, that is an editorial judgment. This is my editorial judgment and it is fully compatible with "no original research" policy and sourcing policy including guidelines. I respect all opinions and I have evaluated all comments (yes, all), implemented majority of them and unfortunately not implemented last 3 comments. Respect the article as it is in this point and evaluate the featured article status with such ascertainment, please. --Snek01 (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I respect your opinion, and if you refuse to action my points, then I will respectfully oppose promotion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't all 'discoverers' (or whatever you call them) be in brackets? Now i.e. Pease, 1871 and Gray, 1824 is not, Guppy, 1868 is in some places but not all. --Stefan talk 08:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK, correct, explained above and resolved above. --Snek01 (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry did not read above in that detail. --Stefan talk 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It was not temporarily there in that color box. --Snek01 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_non-marine_molluscs_of_Dominica/archive1&oldid=1061972258"